Nabble - Debian Legal

Re: geotrans license: asking for advice

2008-10-12T15:49:03Z

"Roberto Lumbreras" <rover@...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this doesn't explicitly permit the distribution of
> derivative works, so it is non-free and ftp-masters rejected my first upload.
[...]
> But I can not find "you can distribute derived works" anywhere... [...]
> I have asked them again to clarify these points: [...]
> What should I do? What do you think?

I think you're doing fine. It would be better if they would use one
of the common unambiguously-free software licences, so maybe you could
suggest that, but I'm surprised how inflexible they seem.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: debian/copyright vs year/author permutations

2008-10-12T12:48:15Z

Marcin Owsiany <porridge@...> wrote:
> This means that if I want to describe the copyright of each file
> accurately, using a format like:
>
> foo/bar.c:
> copyright 1999,2004 John Smith <j@...>
> copyright 2000-2004 Jane Other <j@...>
>
> foo/baz.cpp:
> copyright 1998,2001,2004 John Smith <j@...>

I'd invert it and list by maximum year range, author(s), and files, so:-

copyright 2000-2004 Jane Other <j@...>
foo/bar.c

copyright 1999-2004 John Smith <j@...>
foo/bar.c, foo/baz.cpp

I believe that only the end ranges of the dates are significant, but I
could be wrong on that. However, anyone wanting the exact detail can
inspect the source files, after all.

Listing the files is helpful, but not strictly necessary according to
policy section 12.5. I'd leave that out if the package gets too
complicated, but then it's more work to watch for additions and
removals of files changing the copyright holder list.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license

2008-10-11T04:08:38Z

* Ben Finney <ben+debian@...> [2008-10-10 09:43]:

> My conclusion:
>
> Non-free because it forbids redistribution for a fee. Also
> questionable because of the apparent mandatory copyright transfer.
>
> You might want to discuss with upstream whether they can re-license
> the work under the terms of a well-known free software license; I
> would recommend the GNU GPL with “version 2 or later”, or Expat.

Thanks for the thorough analysis of the CSIRO license. I will get in touch
with the upstream author and see what you can do about it.

--
Rafael

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-10-09T21:38:46Z

The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.

"Matthijs Kooijman" <matthijs@...> wrote in message
news:20080929132611.GO15228@......
>In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
>to
>make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens when you
>apply a
>strict interpretation of "object code and executable form". Since not
>applying
>section 3 is not really a problem for us, I mainly want to confirm if this
>interpretation of the GPL is in fact an acceptable one.

The interpretation you made here was perfectly reasonable, although to be on
the safe side,
when using works from pther people one should include any form of source
they reasonably can to sastify all
reasonable interpretations. When a person releases thier own work under the
GPL it is never a problem for them to
interpret the terms more permissively than some other might. So I see no
issue, unless you try to rely on your interpretation
when using GPL'd work from a different copyright holder. In that event you
would want to clarify the potential ambiguity with them first,
or just stay on the side of caution, and include source according to what
seems to you to be the preferred form of further modification.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: geotrans license: asking for advice

2008-10-09T21:15:27Z

"Peter S Galbraith" <psg@...> wrote in message
news:27721.1223576861@......

> Roberto Lumbreras <rover@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi...
>>
>> I have packaged a nice software called geotrans (ITP #468918):
>> http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/
>> whose author is NGA (US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). You
>> can find my work at http://rover.thehackers.org/geotrans/
>
> I'm quite surprised that they are not claiming copyright under US law,
> but yet claim copyright under other jurisdictions (if I understood
> correctly).
>
> Traditionaly, software developed by the US government has had no
> copyright (i.e. public domain). It is strange to see an outfit cliam it
> only in other jurisdictions. Seems to go against the principle.

This interpretation of the relevent clause of the constitution has been
around since the begining.
The Government can own copyright on works they developed, but are barred
from enforcing the copyright inside the country or against American
citizens. (It is one of those, or perhaps both, I don't rember which.)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license

2008-10-09T15:43:09Z

Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@...> writes:

> Here is the README file:

Thank you.

> Copyright 2000-2002 CSIRO Marine Research

Full copyright statement, including years and legal entity. Good.

> There is no warranty whatsoever. Use at your own risk.

Normal warranty disclaimer. No effect on DFSG status. Good.

> These code may be freely redistributed under the condition that the
> copyright notices are not removed. You may distribute modified
> versions of this code UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY
> MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF
> CSIRO, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT
> CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE MODIFICATIONS.

This paragraph appears to be the full grant of license and terms.
This, the copyright statement, and the warranty disclaimer, are the
parts that would need to be included in full in the ‘debian/copyright’
file.

Grants freedom to modify and redistribute, which is necessary for the
work to be DFSG-free. Good.

It's rather odd that, instead of requiring that the copyright *notice*
be preserved, that the condition is for the “CODE AND ANY
MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF
CSIRO”. I'm not sure whether that's non-free; it seems to be a
mandatory transfer of copyright to CSIRO.

Forbids the redistributor from charging for source or object code.
Non-free. BAD.

Requires the modifier to give “CLEAR NOTICE … OF THE MODIFICATIONS”.
We accept this as free in many other licenses and I see no reason to
complain in this case. Good.

Uses SHOUTY CAPITALS making the license terms harder to read, not
clearer. Bad, but no effect on DFSG status.

> Acknowledgments:
> This library uses `Triangle' by Jonathan Richard Shewchuk for
> Delaunay triangulation -- thanks, Richard, well done!

No indication of what copyright or license accrues to this
contribution. Does the code that is referenced here contain any more
specific copyright or license information?

My conclusion:

Non-free because it forbids redistribution for a fee. Also
questionable because of the apparent mandatory copyright transfer.

You might want to discuss with upstream whether they can re-license
the work under the terms of a well-known free software license; I
would recommend the GNU GPL with “version 2 or later”, or Expat.

--
\ “Self-respect: The secure feeling that no one, as yet, is |
`\ suspicious.” —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Apple patent on Dock affecting dock packages ?

2008-10-09T15:28:28Z

Le jeudi 09 octobre 2008 à 12:07 -0700, Walter Landry a écrit :
> Julien Lavergne <julien.lavergne@...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There is now a patent for Apple of the concept of "Dock". Is there a
> > risk for all "dock" packages in Debian, such as avant-window-navigator ?
>
> There is a patent risk for every package in Debian. Until someone
> starts enforcing a patent, the de-facto policy of Debian has been to
> ignore it.
Thanks for the clarification. I hope it'll stay as it, just a threat,
not a reality.

Le jeudi 09 octobre 2008 à 21:00 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> IANAL, but patents are not supposed to "protect" ideas, but
> implementations. It is at least true in the hardware industry. It often
> happens that companies circumvent competitor patents by implementing the
> same idea in another way, sometimes even filing a patent for the new
> implementation.
I think the same, but when I read the patent, it's more a concept that a
simple implementation. But IANAL too.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

debian/copyright vs year/author permutations

2008-10-09T13:43:36Z

Hi,

Given that accurately listing the copyright holder (together with the
years) for all files in a package is encouraged/required, I'm wondering
how to deal with the following problem:

In one of my packages, there are hundreds of files, most of which have
more than copyright holder, but since they were edited at different
times, there is a LOT of actual year/copyright holder combinations.
This means that if I want to describe the copyright of each file
accurately, using a format like:

foo/bar.c:
copyright 1999,2004 John Smith <j@...>
copyright 2000-2004 Jane Other <j@...>

foo/baz.cpp:
copyright 1998,2001,2004 John Smith <j@...>

then even if I use wildcards in the file specification, there might not
be a lot of place where I could fold multiple stanzas to save on
repetition.

The only idea I have that would not introduce inaccuracies would be to
group like this:

John Smith:
copyright 1998
foo/baz.cpp
copyright 1999
foo/bar.c
[...]
copyright 2004
foo/bar.c, foo/baz.cpp

But given that copyright on some files spans whole decades, this would
hardly save any space.

Another thing is - keeping this information up to date seems like a lot
of work.

Or should I just group authors (with unions of copyright year sets) and
files into rough batches even though this would not be accurate in all
cases? Such as claiming that an author has a copyright on a file even if
he does not, or does not in (all) given years?

How are other people dealing with this?

--
Marcin Owsiany <porridge@...> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Apple patent on Dock affecting dock packages ?

2008-10-09T12:07:16Z

Julien Lavergne <julien.lavergne@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is now a patent for Apple of the concept of "Dock". Is there a
> risk for all "dock" packages in Debian, such as avant-window-navigator ?

There is a patent risk for every package in Debian. Until someone
starts enforcing a patent, the de-facto policy of Debian has been to
ignore it.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Apple patent on Dock affecting dock packages ?

2008-10-09T12:00:03Z

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:40:15PM +0200, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is now a patent for Apple of the concept of "Dock". Is there a
> risk for all "dock" packages in Debian, such as avant-window-navigator ?

FWIW, the patent is more about zooming docks like the OSX one than plain
docks. I don't know how the different claims are to be understood
individually, but some are detailing the zoom factors with algebraic
formulas.
IANAL, but patents are not supposed to "protect" ideas, but
implementations. It is at least true in the hardware industry. It often
happens that companies circumvent competitor patents by implementing the
same idea in another way, sometimes even filing a patent for the new
implementation.
Maybe different implementations of the same idea would be fine.

Mike

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license

2008-10-09T11:49:44Z

* Ben Finney <ben+debian@...> [2008-10-09 09:05]:

> Please post the complete text of the license terms (and, preferably,
> preceded by the grant of license on the work) here in this thread so
> we can discuss it in context.

Here is the README file:

========================================================================
nn
Natural Neighbours interpolation library
Version 1.20

C library functions and two utilities for Natural Neighbours interpolation.

Copyright 2000-2002 CSIRO Marine Research
GPO 1538 Hobart
TAS 7001
Australia
Please send comments and bugs to Pavel.Sakov@...

There is no warranty whatsoever. Use at your own risk.

These code may be freely redistributed under the condition that the copyright
notices are not removed. You may distribute modified versions of this code
UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE
SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF CSIRO, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE
MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE
MODIFICATIONS.

This code has is being developed and used under i386/Linux. I do not think
there will be major problems for porting it elsewhere. Please let me know if
you managed to do it.

To compile, run:

configure
make
(make install)

For a couple of quick tests, run:

make tests
./nnphi_test
./nnai_test
./ht_test

Apart from the `nn' library, this code contains `nnbathy' -- a simple
interpolation utility/example based on `nn'. Look in ./example to try or test
it.

Acknowledgments:
This library uses `Triangle' by Jonathan Richard Shewchuk for Delaunay
triangulation -- thanks, Richard, well done!

Good luck!
Pavel Sakov
========================================================================

--
Rafael

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: geotrans license: asking for advice

2008-10-09T11:27:41Z

Roberto Lumbreras <rover@...> wrote:

> Hi...
>
> I have packaged a nice software called geotrans (ITP #468918):
> http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/
> whose author is NGA (US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). You
> can find my work at http://rover.thehackers.org/geotrans/

I'm quite surprised that they are not claiming copyright under US law,
but yet claim copyright under other jurisdictions (if I understood
correctly).

Traditionaly, software developed by the US government has had no
copyright (i.e. public domain). It is strange to see an outfit cliam it
only in other jurisdictions. Seems to go against the principle.

Peter

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Apple patent on Dock affecting dock packages ?

2008-10-09T10:40:15Z

Hi,

There is now a patent for Apple of the concept of "Dock". Is there a
risk for all "dock" packages in Debian, such as avant-window-navigator ?

Slashdot article :
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/08/1224224

The patent :
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,434,177

Thanks for your help.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

geotrans license: asking for advice

2008-10-09T10:20:11Z

Hi...

I have packaged a nice software called geotrans (ITP #468918):
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/
whose author is NGA (US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). You
can find my work at http://rover.thehackers.org/geotrans/

The package provides a GUI written in java that is like a calculator,
and a library
providing functions to convert between coordinate systems, map projections
and datums.

The problem is that the license says:

"NGA hereby grants to each user of the software a license to use and
distribute the software, and develop derivative works."

Unfortunately, this doesn't explicitly permit the distribution of
derivative works, so it is non-free and ftp-masters rejected my first upload.
It is a shame I missed it, but I did it. In the license they say
things like "Although
NGA makes no copyright claim under Title 17 U.S.C., NGA claims copyrights in
the source code under other legal regimes.", so it was clear for me that they
were allowing distribution... but the magic words are missing in the license :(

I've asked the authors to clarify this, and I recently got a mail saying:

> Please find an updated "Terms of Use" for GEOTRANS. Our position is that
> derivative works may be distributed, if they adhere to these "Terms." A
> new version (GEOTRANS 2.4.2) will be made available shortly.

I send you attached these new "terms of use", that adds a new point (2) saying:

> 2. NGA requests that products developed using the software credit the source
> of the software with the following statement, "The product was developed
> using GEOTRANS, a product of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
> (NGA) and U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center." Do
> not use the name GEOTRANS for any derived work.

But I can not find "you can distribute derived works" anywhere... maybe you can
understand that you can because point 2 requests giving credit in "products
developed using the software" (so you can distribute them, if you can't is
useless to give credit)..., and also is the requirement that the name
of geotrans
can not be used in any derived work, so it is clear that:

-you can do derivative works using a different name (maybe geotranz? ;-)
-you must give credit them in derivative works, so... can you distribute them???

I have asked them again to clarify these points:

> Could you please change that sentence to: "NGA hereby grants to each user
> of the software a license to use and distribute the software, develop and
> distribute derivative works." ?
>
> In point 2 it is clear that credit must be given to the software and that the
> name of "geotrans" can not be used in derivative works. But... fixing a bug
> in the source, or changing something is a derivative work?
>
> I had modified geotrans sources to adapt them to the Debian Operating
> System, that changes are only to compile (makefile changes) and build
> geotrans (missing import directives for my compiler) from the source, and
> some small changes to make the help work in Debian (netscape changed to
> x-www-browser and the directory where help files are). I have also modified
> the geotrans icon so it has a transparent background.
>
> All of that changes I understand they are not derivative works, so the name of
> "geotrans" can be used in the Debian distribution of geotrans. Do you agree?

What should I do? What do you think?

Regards,
--
Roberto Lumbreras
Debian developer

ï»¿GEOTRANS Terms of Use:

1. The GEOTRANS source code ("the software") is provided free of charge by
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) of the United States
Department of Defense. Although NGA makes no copyright claim under Title 17
U.S.C., NGA claims copyrights in the source code under other legal regimes.
NGA hereby grants to each user of the software a license to use and
distribute the software, and develop derivative works.

2. NGA requests that products developed using the software credit the
source of the software with the following statement, "The product was
developed using GEOTRANS, a product of the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) and U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center."
Do not use the name GEOTRANS for any derived work.

3. Warranty Disclaimer: The software was developed to meet only the
internal requirements of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
The software is provided "as is," and no warranty, express or implied,
including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for particular purpose or arising by statute or otherwise in law or
from a course of dealing or usage in trade, is made by NGA as to the
accuracy and functioning of the software.

4. NGA and its personnel are not required to provide technical support or
general assistance with respect to public use of the software. Government
customers may contact NGA.

5. Neither NGA nor its personnel will be liable for any claims, losses, or
damages arising from or connected with the use of the software. The user
agrees to hold harmless the United States National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA). The user's sole and exclusive remedy is to stop using the
software.

6. Please be advised that pursuant to the United States Code, 10 U.S.C.
425, the name of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the initials
"NGA", the seal of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or any
colorable imitation thereof shall not be used to imply approval,
endorsement, or authorization of a product without prior written permission
from United States Secretary of Defense. Do not create the impression that
NGA, the Secretary of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence has
endorsed any product derived from GEOTRANS.

similar, but not same

2008-10-09T06:56:13Z

Dont' cc: me, please continue at debian-legal.

Dude, you are opening a can of worms here.

According to openarena pages, both of these models have been
created by openarena authors - thus they are not direct copies.

http://openarena.wikia.com/wiki/Kyonshi
http://openarena.wikia.com/wiki/Grism

They do hold resemblance to the originals, yet they are
also representative on their generic genres. Exactly how much
the resemblance is needed to be a copyright violation is a
matter of court to decide. So Just foaming "it looks like a blatant
copyright violation to me" isn't very productive.

For example, compare Donald duck with "Howard The Duck". Marvel
avoided legal action from Disney by merely adding trousers to
the character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_the_Duck

> Similarity? They're nearly exactly the same in OpenArena and
> Darkstalkers.

Funny, the darkstalker char has wings, trousers and boobs jumping out.
While the openarena character has none of those. Rest of the features
sans face are directly from the Jiang Shi genre. Which, the original
submitter failed to research before filing a grave bug on copying
vampires:

http://disraeli-demon.blogspot.com/2007/12/stickleback-englands-glory-in-2000ad.html

But this IMHO discussion needs some more experienced input than
the original reporters gut feeling. So over and out for me..

--

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license

2008-10-08T15:05:56Z

Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@...> writes:

> Could you please check whether the license for the CSIRO library [1]
> is DFSG-compatible?

Please post the complete text of the license terms (and, preferably,
preceded by the grant of license on the work) here in this thread so
we can discuss it in context.

--
\ “To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you |
`\ must also be well-mannered.” —Voltaire |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

DFSG-compatibility of CSIRO license

2008-10-08T14:09:34Z

Could you please check whether the license for the CSIRO library [1] is
DFSG-compatible? There has been some discussion about this in Bug#500687
and in the debian-gis mailing list [2]

[1] http://plplot.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/plplot/trunk/lib/nn/README
[2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-general/2008-September/003209.html

Thanks,

--
Rafael

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.5

2008-10-07T15:11:10Z

Philipp Hübner <debalance@...> writes:

> If else, would a self-written "truecrypt-packaging package" like
> googleearth-package go into main or has it to go into contrib?

A package ‘foo’ which has the primary purpose of downloading and
installing non-free software ‘bar’ is not suitable for category
‘main’.

If ‘foo’ is itself DFSG-free, it may be suitable for category
‘contrib’.

<URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections>

--
\ “To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an |
`\ authority myself.” —Albert Einstein, 1930-09-18 |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.5

2008-10-07T06:13:05Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

Francesco Poli schrieb:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:50:51 +0200 Philipp Hübner wrote:

>> I'm sure that TrueCrypt would not be accepted for Debian (main), but is
>> it alright for non-free?
>
> I am not sure, the click-wrap obligations could be a practical issue,
> even for non-free...
> Anyway, I am not overly interested in checking whether something can be
> shipped in non-free: I'll wait for others to express their opinion.

It seems nobody else is interested.
The click-wrap mechanism wouldn't be a problem, sun-java does the same.
If this is the only difficulty I'd give it a try.

If else, would a self-written "truecrypt-packaging package" like
googleearth-package go into main or has it to go into contrib?

Kind regards,
- --
.''`. Philipp Hübner <debalance@...>
: :' : http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debalance%40arcor.de
`. `'` HP: http://debalance.funpic.de, Skype: philipp-huebner
`- ICQ: 235-524-440, Jabber: der_schakal@...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjrYGAACgkQFhl05MJZ4Oh5cACgkyt9OrfY3uhciPGTEoe4ukzz
8ZwAn1M2fb4H61K9mZfpgXhYsPJHNrBi
=jh18
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

web site

2008-09-30T04:04:06Z

Dear:Debian-legal

Your site needs more web traffic and more online visibility. Right now we are giving away free site
reviews where we will demonstrate how you can get both - easily. Email us today at lilyzey@...
for a no charge site assessment. Include your URL(s) and how we can make contact with you.

Sincerely,
Interplay Marketing

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-29T06:26:11Z

(Please CC me on replies)

Hi Ben,

> > As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
> > game. These are mostly created through 3D modeling. For this, mostly
> > Blender files are rendered into the pcx bitmap format. These pcx
> > files are sometimes manually post processed, and sometimes pcx files
> > are created directly.
> >
> > Now, we are considering GPLv2, since the game itself is licensed as
> > such. In GPLv2, section 3 is the "if you distribute binary, you must
> > also distribute source" clause. However, this is worded such that it
> > is only applicable when distributing the work in "object code or
> > executable form". Since we're working with graphics, it is higly
> > unlikely that this will ever be the case, so section 3 will not be
> > applicable to our case normally. Is this indeed correct?
>
> This is one of the ambiguities in the GPLv2 as applied to software
> that is not programs (and even some programs). As you note, it depends
> on the interpretation of “object code”, which is never defined in the
> license.
>
> The GPLv3 is much better on this point: its §1 clearly defines both
> “source code” and “object code”:
>
> The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the
> work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any
> non-source form of a work.
>
> The GPLv2, however, leaves the definition of “object code” open to
> interpretation. It would be inconclusive in any given instance until a
> court ruled on particular acts; not a desirable state of affairs.
>
> It's interesting to note that, terminologically, the GPLv3
> interpretation of these terms is not incompatible with the GPLv2; a
> specific licensor could argue that what they mean by those terms in
> the GPLv2 is what the GPLv3 explicitly defines them as.
>
> > So, in effect this means that using the GPL for our graphics will
> > ensure that the graphics will stay free and available form
> > modification, in whatever format the original authors supplied them.
> > It will not prevent possible misuse of the graphics, but that is not
> > a real problem (and somewhat harder to prevent, thouh GPLv3 might do
> > a decent job).
>
> The GPLv3, with its explicit and clear deliniation of “source code”
> and “object code” that would be easy to interpret for the graphic
> files you're talking about, would be a much better fit.
>
>
> I see two basic options for you to better use the GPL for the work.
> One:
>

> Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant of
> license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3. This
> would have a license grant something like:

I guess you say relicense here, because this added clarification becomes in
fact part of the license itself? I guess this might cause problems when
including other GPL'd code, which does not have this clarification and thus
is a different (possibly incompatible?) license.

However, discussing this further is rather pointless, since there is no single
copyright holder for the project, and relicensing the game is not feasible.

What would perhaps be an option is to include this clarification nonetheless,
but (explicitly) not make it a part of the license, but say "this is how the
copyright holders of the graphical content interpret the GPL". Then, this
would just declare how we interpret the GPL, and how we would be defending it
if it ever came to court. Not sure if this is worth it, though.

Also, I'm not so sure that this simple clarification is enough either, since
there are multiple formats that are preferred for modifications. Which format
that is, depends on the actual sprite in question, the sort of changes you
want to make, the personal preference of the artist making the change, etc.

In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens when you apply a
strict interpretation of "object code and executable form". Since not applying
section 3 is not really a problem for us, I mainly want to confirm if this
interpretation of the GPL is in fact an acceptable one.

> Re-license the entire work — program, graphics, and all other
> software — under the GPLv3. This will benefit from better definitions
> that can clearly apply to all software, without needing extra clauses
> in the grant of license.
Again, this is not an option for use.

> Hope that helps; thank you for wrestling with these important issues.
Thanks for providing feedback!

Gr.

Matthijs

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-28T08:53:49Z

On söndagen den 28 september 2008, Joe Smith wrote:

> "Don Armstrong" <don@...> wrote in message
> news:20080928003053.GB26325@......
>
> >The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
> >means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
> >you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
> >than "you don't have to pay for these works". Likewise, if "use" means
> >just "perform", then it's totally different from a standin for "use in
> >any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution,
> >and performance."
>
> Well, the word "fri" (plural/definiate-form fria) in Swedish is exactly
> equivlent to the English word "free" including
> the meanings "libre", "gratis", "without" (e.g. lead-free), and "not
> blocked" (available, like a free seat at a table).
> So there is no help there.

Except that we almost always say "gratis" when we mean "without cost",
and "ledig" in the case of a free seat. "Fri" normally means free as in
freedom or free from something undesirable (meanings 1 and 3).

--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@...
Debian Developer

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-28T07:56:16Z

"Don Armstrong" <don@...> wrote in message
news:20080928003053.GB26325@......

>The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
>means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
>you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
>than "you don't have to pay for these works". Likewise, if "use" means
>just "perform", then it's totally different from a standin for "use in
>any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution,
>and performance."

Well, the word "fri" (plural/definiate-form fria) in Swedish is exactly
equivlent to the English word "free" including
the meanings "libre", "gratis", "without" (e.g. lead-free), and "not
blocked" (available, like a free seat at a table).
So there is no help there.

I cannot find information about the meanings of "använda" to fins out how
closely it mimics the english word "use", but i will note
that all online sources do claim that the correct english translation for
the verb "använda" is the verb "use"

So that does not help either. Clarification from the copyright holder would
help a lot here.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Bug#498477: GPL-compatiblity of python licenses

2008-09-28T04:14:40Z

OoO Pendant le temps de midi du dimanche 28 septembre 2008, vers 12:45,
Matthias Klose <doko@...> disait :

> severity 498857 important
> severity 498477 important
> thanks

>> I don't know the real implication on the license

> if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place

There *is* a licensing problem that should be solved by at least by
fixing debian/copyright. This is a RC bug (policy violation, doesn't
respect DFSG by requiring the user to be bound to additional license
terms, i.e GPL ones).

You are hiding the problem by downgrading severity.

What I am not sure of is that mixing GPL licensed code and OpenSSL
derived code prevent Python to be distributed in this form or just
programs using both pieces of code to be distributed.
--
I AM NOT A LICENSED HAIRSTYLIST
I AM NOT A LICENSED HAIRSTYLIST
I AM NOT A LICENSED HAIRSTYLIST
-+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode AABF04

attachment0 (202 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#498477: GPL-compatiblity of python licenses

2008-09-28T03:45:51Z

severity 498857 important
severity 498477 important
thanks

> I don't know the real implication on the license

if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place

> reopen 498857
> reopen 498477
> thanks
>
> OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 19 septembre 2008, vers 00:53,
> Thomas Viehmann <tv@...> disait=A0:
>
> > Hi Vincent,
> > thanks for looking into licensing issues in Debian.
>
> > How exactly is the python license GPL-incompatible?
>
> > If you scroll down a screen or two on the license[1] and move your
> > attention to the right column, you will find the assertion that all
> > recent versions of python have a GPL-compatible license, even indicating
> > where the FSF's opinion differs from the python copyright holders.
> > In particular, all python versions from oldstable onwards are
> > undisputedly GPL-compatible.
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
> I did not say that python license is GPL-incompatible. There are two
> problems:
> - the fact that readline.so module is linked to GNU Readline is not
> mentioned in debian/copyright where it should because if the user
> uses this module in some non-GPL work and distribute it, it will
> break GPL because GNU Readline is GPL.
> - _ssl.so is linked with OpenSSL and hence is incompatible with GPL
> without an exception that is not granted in GNU Readline. Therefore,
> a program cannot be linked to both readline.so and _ssl.so.
>
> GPL compatibility only says that you can mix Python code with GPL code
> and get a valid GPL code (first footnote in debian/copyright highlights
> the meaning of "GPL compatible"). Python license is GPL compatible
> however not every piece of Python is licensed under Python license.
> debian/copyright contains some exceptions. readline.so is another
> exception that should be noted in debian/copyright.
>
> The rest of the world don't believe there is no problem with this. Apple
> removed GNU Readline of its Python and replaced it with editline (which
> causes some incompatibilities).
>
> About the second problem, as both readline.so and _ssl.so are optional
> module, I am not really sure if this is a serious problem or if a note
> could be dropped in debian/copyright about the fact that a program using
> both _ssl.so and readline.so cannot be distributed.
>
> I am putting debian-legal@ in copy to those bugs to get some additional
> insights on this matter. I am not a lawyer.
> =2D-=20
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> =2D+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 8F13
>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T18:53:12Z

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any
> > information as to what the underlying words that were translated
> > actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages.
>
> Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial
> poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like
> "rights" into sentences that is talking about costs.

A right to use a copyrighted work traditionally involves cost; these
are not orthogonal concepts.

> Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if
> the first sentence is really talking about money.

It's possible to interpret it in an entirely consistent manner if it's
just refering to performance and not modification. It wouldn't be the
first time that someone used two sentences to amplify or expand the
point that they are making in the first. For example, I'm going to do
so right here.

Don Armstrong

--
"You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember
when you are old."
-- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413)

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T18:05:25Z

On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:54:02 pm Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <don@...> writes:
> >
> > > The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
> > > means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
> > > you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
> > > than "you don't have to pay for these works".
> >
> > Given the subsequent "This means [use for any purpose]" language, I
> > think "free as in beer" is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation
> > of that).
>
> The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any
> information as to what the underlying words that were translated
> actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages.

Which is certainly a fair point... but I'm thinking the initial poster is a native speaker, and isn't going to insert terms like "rights" into sentences that is talking about costs. That's a fairly outstanding translation mistake. Also, that second sentence would have to be essentially made-up if the first sentence is really talking about money. Yes, the English language has its ambiguities, but a little attention to context is adequate in most situations.

-Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:59:57Z

On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:34:33 pm Ben Finney wrote:

> Sean Kellogg <skellogg@...> writes:
>
> > On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > ATTENTION!!
> > > > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> > > > them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> > > > ask for permission.
> > >
> > > Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
> > > mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.
> >
> > How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this
> > license in your analysis
>
> I didn't "skip over it"; I'm taking the following "this means" as an
> explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says "foo
> means bar", I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring
> my own wishful meanings to it.

If we are going to apply a technical reading to an obviously non-technically drafted license (which judges don't do) then let's observe the fact that the second sentence does not contain any indication that it is an exclusive definition of what the preceding sentence means. There is no need to bring wishful meanings, just a dash of common sense.

> > > Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
> > > reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.
> >
> > Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part.
>
> I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that
> first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of
> redistribution and deriving modified works.

What part of "any context you like" fails to make it clear that redistribution and derivative works are covered by the already very liberal terms of the first sentence?

-Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:54:02Z

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:

> Don Armstrong <don@...> writes:
>
> > The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
> > means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
> > you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
> > than "you don't have to pay for these works".
>
> Given the subsequent "This means [use for any purpose]" language, I
> think "free as in beer" is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation
> of that).

The problem is that we're working off of a translation without any
information as to what the underlying words that were translated
actually mean. There's not a one-to-one mapping between languages.

Don Armstrong

--
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you
step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers'
EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof,
sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychedelic patterns --
requires no fitting, no prescriptions.
-- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470.

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:45:01Z

Don Armstrong <don@...> writes:

> The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
> means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
> you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
> than "you don't have to pay for these works".

Given the subsequent "This means [use for any purpose]" language, I
think "free as in beer" is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation
of that).

> Likewise, if "use" means just "perform", then it's totally different
> from a standin for "use in any manner, including but not limited to
> modifcation, distribution, and performance."

I'll also point out that there is massive precedent for "artists" to
find the idea of granting rights to derive modified works and
redistribute to be quite alien. It's not uncommon to hear the same
arguments against freedom presented anew from such people that were
discarded a decade ago in the field of programming.

So, I would *not* assume that the DFSG freedoms are implied in a
statement of "totally free" from a statement not already known to have
that meaning.

> Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that
> we need, we should in general assume that we haven't.

Agreed.

> All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means
> for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially
> understood to be DFSG free is ideal.

Yes. Perhaps the original poster can communicate this upstream?

--
\ “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” |
`\ —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:34:33Z

Sean Kellogg <skellogg@...> writes:

> On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > ATTENTION!!
> > > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> > > them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> > > ask for permission.
> >
> > Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
> > mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.
>
> How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this
> license in your analysis

I didn't "skip over it"; I'm taking the following "this means" as an
explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says "foo
means bar", I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring
my own wishful meanings to it.

> > Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
> > reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.
>
> Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part.

I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that
first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of
redistribution and deriving modified works.

--
\ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
`\ Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so.” —_Pinky and |
_o__) The Brain_ |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:30:53Z

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Sean Kellogg wrote:

> On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > ATTENTION!!
> > > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can
> > > use them as much as you want in any context you like, without
> > > needing to ask for permission.
> >
> > Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken
> > to mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.
>
> How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this
> license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is
> nothing more than a description of a single instance of license
> interpretation?

The first sentence is nearly meaningless, and free of content that
would help understand precisely what is meant by "totally free".

Perhaps someone who understands the language in which this license was
written could weigh in and change the interpretation, but based on the
translation we were given, it is not DFSG free.

The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
than "you don't have to pay for these works". Likewise, if "use" means
just "perform", then it's totally different from a standin for "use in
any manner, including but not limited to modifcation, distribution,
and performance."

Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that
we need, we should in general assume that we haven't.

All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means for
the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially understood
to be DFSG free is ideal.

Don Armstrong

--
Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the
vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a
system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then
such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that
the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from.
-- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T17:11:40Z

On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > ATTENTION!!
> > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> > them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> > ask for permission.
>
> Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
> mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.

How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this license in your analysis and go straight to a sentence that is nothing more than a description of a single instance of license interpretation? Don't get me wrong, it's not a great license, but you can't just skip over terms to reach a DFSG invalid determination.

> Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
> reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.

Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part. We might wish it went about listing what those rights are, but I'm not aware of a requirement that such a description need be provided.

> You might like to advise the upstream to choose a well-known free
> software license like the Expat license or ISC license, if those have
> a Swedish translation available.

Always good advice, but I'd still say the license is effectively the same as the Expat... the Expat is just more explicit.

-Sean

--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit

2008-09-27T17:00:09Z

"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@...> writes:

> If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN*
> mix it with both GPL and your own software.
>
> But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must
> distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL

Not quite: the GPL says only that you may not impose *additional*
restrictions beyond those in the GPL. There are a number of non-GPL
licenses that, because their restrictions are a subset of those in the
GPL, are thus compatible with the GPL.

I believe the original poster spoke of an "MIT-style" license; this
term could refer to any of a number of different licenses, so I'll
assume they mean instead terms equivalent to the Expat license.

The terms of the Expat license is one example of a license that is not
GPL but is GPL-compatible. A work derived both from works licensed GPL
and Expat can be redistributed under the GPL.

> but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you
> can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't
> distribute.

If that were true, then it would indeed make the work
non-redistributable. If both licenses *can* be satisfied (as in the
case of GPL and Expat, by redistributing under the terms of the GPL),
then that would be okay.

--
\ “About four years ago, I was — no, it was yesterday.” —Steven |
`\ Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-27T16:53:50Z

Petteri Tolonen <ville.tolonen@...> writes:

> I found this swedish webpage
> http://www.johannespinter.com/inu/ljudbank.htm , that contains
> several good sounds that I would like to modify and use. The
> 'license' is in swedish and doesn't say much:

Thanks for posting the entire license text here for us to discuss.

> -----------------------------
> !!!OBSERVERA!!!
> Rättigheterna är helt fria på samtliga ljud: Du kan alltså använda
> dem precis hur mycket du vill i vilka sammanhang som helst utan att
> behöva fråga om lov eller ha några tillstånd!
> Känner du att ljuden hjälpt dig på vägen; tacka gärna
> "independent.nu" i eftertexterna till din film!
> --------------------------

I am not able to read Swedish, so hopefully someone can get another
translation to corroborate. (You might like to ask on one of the
Debian translation groups for Swedish.)

> my translation:

Thank you.

> ATTENTION!!
> The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> ask for permission.

Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.

Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.

> If you feel that these sounds have helped you then say thanks to
> independent.nu' in the end credits of your film.

A request, so probably not a restriction on actions. DFSG-neutral.

> Do you consider this DFSG compatible?

Without explicit freedom to derive modified works, and redistribute
with or without modification, I'd say this work is not DFSG-free.

You might like to advise the upstream to choose a well-known free
software license like the Expat license or ISC license, if those have
a Swedish translation available.

--
\ “Earth gets its price for what Earth gives us.” —James Russell |
`\ Lowell |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...